BY JOHN K. WILSON
Yesterday, I published an opinion essay at Inside Higher Ed titled, “The Inevitable Problem of Self-Censorship.” I argue that surveys showing that a majority of college students report self-censorship are not meaningful ways to understand repression on campus because everyone self-censors to some degree.
These surveys are also easy to manipulate. FIRE increased the levels of self-censorship from 60 percent in 2020 to 83 percent in 2021 simply by changing the survey item from a “yes/no” to a “how often” response. And other biases may affect the data, as I note:
University of Nebraska professor Elizabeth Niehaus, in her qualitative research for the University of California National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement, found “a critical disconnect between how students answer survey questions and their actual behavior and experiences.” One left-wing student whom she interviewed answered “never” in a self-censorship survey but nevertheless gave several examples of self-censorship in class during a one-on-one follow-up, while “many students are afraid to speak up because they have heard that others may react negatively, but they themselves have never experienced this.”
It’s also possible that high levels of reporting self-censorship are a good thing that reflects a free and open society. In surveys of the general public, the lowest levels of self-censorship occurred in 1954 at the height of McCarthyism and Jim Crow. It doesn’t make much sense to me to claim that there’s three times as much repression in America today as there was during the McCarthy Era.
The distorted evidence from these surveys is being used to target academia, as I argue:
Surveys of self-censorship are increasingly being weaponized by the right to justify greater government control of academe in order to protect the supposedly oppressed conservatives. In June, Republican Florida governor Ron DeSantis signed a new law requiring surveys of self-censorship and political beliefs on campus as a tool to do just that.
Self-censorship is a real danger. We need to figure out ways to encourage people to express themselves and prevent self-censorship. I outline some practical solutions, including restricting formal censorship, making statements about free expression, and creating campus institutions devoted to promoting free speech.
But the surveys of self-censorship don’t provide good evidence of repression, and they don’t guide us toward better ways to encourage self-expression.
Because Inside Higher Ed no longer allows comments (although you can send letters to the editor, letters@insidehighered.com), I wanted to provide an opportunity here at Academe Blog for a deeper discussion about these issues with people who disagree with me. What do you think of self-censorship, and what should colleges do about it?
John K. Wilson was a 2019-20 fellow with the University of California National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement, and is the author of eight books, including Patriotic Correctness: Academic Freedom and Its Enemies.
I may choose not to wear, for example, a pro-Trump hat or a pro-Biden/Harris hat to campus because I don’t want my political views to wind up alienating some of my students. That is not the kind of self-censorship I worry about. I worry about the professors I know who are leaving important content out of their courses–content that they truly think belongs in the course–for fear of student complaints and negative consequences over social media and/or from the university administration. In my view, what colleges can do about this problem include having very clear statements of principles that they’re willing to stand by, and clear processes for handling complaints. We’ve also got to do better educating students about the purpose of college and the importance of open inquiry and free expression.
I think faculty self-censorship is also an inevitable problem, but somewhat different than student self-censorship (which is driven more by peer pressure). Eric Kaufmann has done research on this (https://cspicenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/AcademicFreedom.pdf), but I think we need to know more about the extent of this problem and its causes (Student evaluations? Formal complaints? Public attacks? Administrative interventions?). And yes, we need detailed statements about the academic freedom of faculty (which should go beyond “freedom to teach” by specifying exactly what that protects–although I’ve never seen any good models for this), along with having fair processes that are faculty-run. Educating students is important, but in some ways I think educating faculty and administrators about these issues may be even more important because they hold most of the power within academia.
I speak as someone holding the glum distinction of being the most censored artist in the world. Most of my work has been destroyed, vandalized or suppressed. – by governments, union bureaucrats, police, political organizations and even (gasp) academic blogs.
I’m not even mentioned in censorship books – as invisible as the workers I paint for. Really, it’s like being completely cancelled.
Ultimately, the point of censorship is to impose a culture of self-censorship. And that’s what we have. How can we expect to inspire students to not self-censor when the faculty have, for the most part, been trained to self-censor through the tenure procedure and many other forms of institutional pressure?
How many faculty speak out in their classrooms against the war machine that consumes all the resources of society, leaving students burdened by debt unpayable from low-wage jobs? How many faculty are willing to organize emergency campaigns because the racist denial of positions to people of color is a daily racist crime?
We are taught to self-censor from day one – and our schools, churches and universities drum it into us.
But, not to worry – help will be on the way! When students and workers rise up against the increasing impoverishment and bleak future, it will inspire faculty to step forward and do heroic things. I witnessed that during the Vietnam war – in the US and internationally.
Then we will all speak openly of our hopes and willingness to fight for another world – one based on human needs. We will stop self-censoring.